Iraq Rape-Slay Case Hits Snags
Legal Infighting Delays Trial For Private Alleged To Be Mastermind Until April 2009
-
Photo
Unlike his co-accused, Steven Green, 22, of Midland, Texas, is the only soldier charged in civilian court for the March 2006 slayings, where he faces a possible death sentence if convicted. (AP/Mecklenburg Co. Sheriffs Office)
-
Interactive
Battle For Iraq
The government, the insurgency, key players, background and photos.
-
Photo Essay
Week In Iraq Photos
A daily diary with scenes of the latest attacks and snapshots from the effort to rebuild a nation.
In exchange for leniency, each struck deals to testify against a fifth man, a troubled former Army private who allegedly killed the girl's family and planted the idea of raping the teen.
But the case against Steven D. Green has dragged slowly forward in the 18 months since the allegations surfaced. It is a pace, military legal experts note, that bears stark contrast to swift prosecutions of nearly every other crime to come from Iraq and Afghanistan.
Green, 22, is accused of being a central figure in slaying the family in Mahmoudiya, a village about 20 miles south of Baghdad. He was charged in federal court because he was discharged from the Army for anti-social personality disorder before being accused of the crimes.
On Tuesday, his trial was set for April 13, 2009, in Paducah, Kentucky.
Defense attorneys and federal prosecutors in the case have fought each other on the reach of federal courts into military affairs, the access civilian attorneys have to classified military evidence, and, most recently, what constitutes enough time to prepare for trial.
Some legal experts say the delays and infighting suggest challenges ahead in trying the last chapter of what many regard as the worst atrocity committed by U.S. military personnel in Iraq.
"You've got some very smart people trying a type of case that they normally don't," said Charles Rose, a law professor at Stetson University and former deputy military judge advocate. "Federal criminal courts are designed for paper-driven cases. They don't do violations of the laws of war."
Two of the soldiers testified they took turns raping the girl while Green shot and killed her mother, father and younger sister. The girl's body was then set on fire with kerosene to destroy the evidence, according to previous testimony.
Green pleaded not guilty in November 2006 to charges of rape and murder.
Four Fort Campbell, Kentucky-based 101st Airborne Division soldiers have since been convicted for their roles in targeting the girl from a checkpoint near Mahmoudiya and helping rape and kill her. They were given sentences in courts-martial ranging from five to 110 years under agreements with prosecutors.
Two of the soldiers testified they took turns raping the girl while Green shot and killed her mother, father and younger sister. Green shot the girl in the head after raping her, they said. The girl's body was then set on fire with kerosene to destroy the evidence, according to previous testimony.
At the core of Green's trial is the law used to charge him in U.S. District Court. The Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act allows prosecutors to try military personnel in federal court if they no longer are in the service and are charged for a crime punishable by at least a year in prison.
The law, which has been used rarely, dissolved Green's chances of receiving a sentence comparable to those of the other defendants if he is convicted, attorneys have argued. Each soldier was charged identically, but those convicted in the military have a chance for parole in 10 years no matter the sentence they received.
While legal experts say disparity in sentencing is not unusual, Green's attorneys have argued there is a fundamental issue of fairness that is lost by the government's insistence on trying Green outside of the reaches of the military.
A telephone message seeking comment was left Tuesday at Assistant U.S. District Attorney Marisa Ford's Louisville, Kentucky, office. Green's attorney, Patrick Bouldin, declined to comment Tuesday night.
Delays are expected in a federal death penalty case, where proceedings have lasted as long as three years, legal experts say.
But Gary Solis, a law professor at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, New York, remains baffled that prosecuting the Mahmoudiya slayings has lingered when so many other crimes in Iraq have come to a close.
Solis said trying Green in U.S. District Court undoubtedly reflects political pressure to ensure the most severe punishment for the crime's alleged ringleader.
© MMVII The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.



- 1
- 2
- next
See all 57 CommentsPosted by connapa at 10:45 AM : Dec 19, 2007
They can only reinstate someone discharged under honorable conditions. Medical and less-than-honerable condition discharges carry special requirements prior to reinstating.
Yes, give this kid the works, while giving Halliburton a free pass for their rape. This kid must be a Democrat. No Republican soldier would have ever been charged, nor would Halliburton.
I say hang all 5 in public in the neighborhoos they committed this atrocity in to show the iraqis we are about justice and not about a family fued between the Bushs and the Saddam or about oil.
and yet these ignorant soldier enjoy''s themselves like that
It a shame upon the MILITARY title..not only them that are being accused, every personnel are in bad name''s because of this behaviors
I totally, TOTALLY agree! What is wrong with this country''s justice system? Evidently, lawyers. "Justice" is illusion when it can be manipulated, bought, spun, etc.
In no way am I trying to defend this scummbag, but why is someone from the military charged with murder in federal court, (as he should be), but the pieces of ***** from Blackwater walk away from 17 dead bodies free of any persecution? Weren''t we told that it was out of the federal court''s jurisdiction?
Posted by meboard at 11:26 AM : Dec 19, 2007
Nah - he doesn''t have enough money.
Good lord! Where did you learn to speak and spell?
Crawford (TX) Central High School?
Posted by meboard at 11:26 AM : Dec 19, 2007
Nah - he doesn''''t have enough money.
Posted by hungry1968 at 01:04 PM : Dec 19, 2007
King of Pardons is Bill Clinton.
Posted by jowand at 01:24 PM : Dec 19, 2007
How many days in jail did Scooter Libby serve for outing a CIA agent?
And the reason all of this controversy is going on regarding the destruction of the interrogation tapes is.... they don''t want the CIA agents identities to be leaked out!!!
What a hypocritical bunch of corrupt, conniving, lying, scummbags!! (And I refer to Bush supporters in the same manner...)
Because Cheney quashed it.
Rush Limbaugh teaches his parrotheads to talk, and they endlessly - and stupidly - repeat his phrases. Excellence In Propaganda.
Here is a good article on on of the mass-murderous rampages of the subhuman, steroid addled, Blackwater terrorists-for-rent:
www.democracynow.org/2007/12/19/broadcast_exclusive_iraqi_witnesses_victims_describe
Also, another U.S. sponsored rent-a-terrorist group, CACI, is being sued by "256 prisoners held at prisons in Iraq" for their torue activities against these people.
www.democracynow.org/2007/12/19/military_contractor_caci_accused_of_widespread
PFC Green would have been an ideal asset to either of these terrorist networks.
If the two young Iraqi boys that came home to find their parents and family slaughtered, and their 14-year-old sister gang-raped and charred, decide to kill the brutal and illegal invaders of their country, can anyone blame them?
If the young girl who has the brains of her parents sprayed on her, after they are executed by trigger-happy U.S. soldiers at a checkpoint, seeks the extermination of the illegal invaders of her country and killers of her parents, can anyone blame her?
If the Iraqi victims of CACI torture chambers, innocent of any crime, seek to eliminate this subhuman scum from the face of the earth, could anyone blame them?
If anyone, anywhere, seeks to defend themselves against the amoral mass-murderers and terrorists of Blackwater, can anyone blame them?
Are we fighting the imaginary group, "al-Qaeda-in-Iraq", in Iraq, or could it be that the millions of maimed, raped, tortured, humiliated, soddomized, and/or displaced Iraqis, are defending themselves against the brutal and criminal invaders, and destroyers of their country?
Gunnerv1,
Same goes for a lie-based, mass-murdering, torture prone illegal invader, eh Gomer? Does murdering and torturing women and children make you feel like a big man?
The people of Iraq obviously have every right to defend themselves.
As illegal invaders, our soldiers retain ZERO rights, and have only responsibilities, and our criminal effort has failed miserably to meet any of these obligations.
Your demented mindset is testimony as to why that is the case.
Re: "Remember, if you are not in uniform and you are armed, in accordance with the Geneva Conventions"
Remember "Gunnerv1", people in a country that is facing a brutal and illegal invasion, ALWAYS have the right to defend themselves, by whatever menas they deem necessary. They need not wear uniforms to do so.
Also, any coward defending the mass-murder, torture, plunder, etc., in Iraq and elsewhere, has no business citing the Geneva Conventions.
"King of Pardons is Bill Clinton."
Indeed - but let''s not forget that George Bush Snr liked to pardon convicted terrorists.
Personally, that piece of scum deserves everything he gets.
Re: "Otherwise, the offensive force might as well kill everyone in sight to keep from being shot in the back."
This appears to be the strategy.
"Failure to do so brands you as a spy/criminal and you are subject to being killed on sight as a ''war-criminal''"
Hardly. If the Blackwater goons showed up in your neigborhood, and began mudering, torturing, and raping your familiy, friends, and neighbors, would you first have a meeting to discuss the appropriate attire for the occasion, and wait for UPS to deliver your chosen "uniform" before you decided to resist them?
Would you be in violation of the Geneva Conventions if you started to defend yourselves before your uniforms arrived?
Besides that, illegal invaders, by definition, lack any standing to hide behind the rule of law in defense their behavior.
Is gang-raping and murdering children part of the Chevron "Human Energy" campaign?
In the Chevron "Human Energy" spirit, more women have come forward as rape victims of Halliburton.
"More Women Report *** Assaults in Iraq"
"WASHINGTON (AP) %u2014 A woman who claims she was raped by a fellow employee while working for a U.S. contractor in Iraq told House lawmakers Wednesday that her case is far from unique."
Posted by FeelFree1 at 06:04 PM : Dec 19, 2007
Define ''illegal''
Re: "Define ''illegal''
Posted by ToolMangler
###
Fruad based, undeclared, in violation of the Nuremberg Charter and the U.N. Charter (hence- illegal under our own Constitution), rife with widespread torture, rape, and wreckless to intentional slaughter of civilians, and countless other atrocities.
In other words, lacking any basis under the rule of law.
The President has ZERO authority to declare war on anyone. Obviously a Resident does not either.
In other words, lacking any basis under the rule of law.
Posted by FeelFree1 at 07:52 PM : Dec 19, 2007
In other words, A "power" would have to issue a "If, Or, Then" statement to an ''offending'' party for it to be legal. As I recall the offending party here (Saddam) was asked and later told to leave office, he refused. He was asked, advised, told, warned, cajoled and warned again but still he refused, he was given an ''If'' you don''t leave ''Or'' surrender ''Then'' we will attack and force you out. he didn''t so Bushy_baby did. (see there, you made me say his name) , wash my mouth out with soap!!!
Halliburton employees likely raped a co-worker (looks like 4 now), Dyncorp employees kept child *** slaves and the U.S. does nothing -- that''s is what justice means in Bush''s crazy world of selective immunity and garbled jurisdiction.
Look at the contradictions in these cases and it is clear why Bush and the Neo-Cons will be remembered as incompetant if not downright evil.
And, exactly a year later, the Justice Department brought that sweeping argument to bear in the context of electronic eavesdropping to deal with foreign terrorist threats. In a legal brief, it claimed that %u201Cthe Constitution vests in the President inherent authority to conduct warrantless intelligence surveillance (electronic or otherwise) of foreign powers or their agents, and Congress cannot by statute extinguish that constitutional authority.%u201D
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/analysis-collision-course-on-inherent-power/
ToolMangler,
Re: "In other words, A "power" would have to issue a "If, Or, Then" statement to an ''''offending'''' party for it to be legal."
Nope. It needs to be in response to an eminent threat, or with the express consent of the U.N., with an accompaying U.N. Security Council Resolution authorizing the use of force.
Neither apply.
According to our Constitution, it also requires a declarationof war by our Congress- the ONLY ones with authority in matters of war.
Steven Green was discharges and is *not* being prosecuted under UCMJ (military) justice.
Halliburton employees likely raped a co-worker (looks like 4 now), Dyncorp employees kept child *** slaves and the U.S. does nothing -- that''''s is what justice means in Bush''''s crazy world of selective immunity and garbled jurisdiction.
Steven Green will walk free. He will be able to party with your daughter. Just like the Hailburton and Dyncorp rapists he falls into the loophole. I bet they joke about it - after all, boys will be boys.
Look at the contradictions in these cases and it is clear why Bush and the Neo-Cons will be remembered as incompetant if not downright evil.
Wait until people see Redacted and realize that Steven Green will walk free...
Here''s the problem -- it they prosecute Steven Green it will mean they can prosecute the rapists and killers from Haliburton and Dyncorp.
Steven Green was discharged and is *not* being prosecuted under UCMJ (military) justice.
Steven Green now falls into one of the many Bush ''legal loopholes''.
Halliburton employees likely raped a co-worker (looks like 4 now), Dyncorp employees kept child *** slaves and the U.S. does nothing -- that''''''''s is what justice means in Bush''''''''s crazy world of selective immunity and garbled jurisdiction.
Haliburton and Dyncorp rapists and killers fall into the same loophole as Steven Green.
Steven Green will walk free. He will be able to party with your daughter. Just like the Hailburton and Dyncorp rapists, he falls into the loophole. I bet they joke about it - after all, boys will be boys.
Or, maybe they will detain him indefinately without charges (at least until past the next election I''m sure).
Look at the contradictions in these cases and it is clear why Bush and the Neo-Cons will be remembered as incompetant if not downright evil.
Wait until people see the movie Redacted about the rape and killing of a 14 year old girl in front of her family...and then realize that Steven Green will walk free...
With the law as it is .. there is no way he will even be convicted of being a *** offender. And, if they do find a way to prosecute him...I don''t see why it does not apply to everyone else as well...
Steven Green was discharged from the Army, and is *not* being prosecuted under UCMJ (military) justice.
He now falls into a phony ''legal loophole'' created by Bush and the Neocons.
Halliburton employees likely raped a co-worker (or 4), Dyncorp employees kept child s.x slaves, and the U.S. does nothing -- that''s what justice means in Bush''s world of selective immunity and garbled jurisdiction.
The alleged Haliburton rapists and killers (and, illegal arms sellers) fall into the same loophole as Steven Green, to preserve the loophole its impossible to prosecute him.
Steven Green will walk free. Just like Hailburton rapists, he falls into the loophole. They will be able to party with your daughter, and there''s nothing anyone can do.
Or, maybe they will just detain him indefinately (or, at least past next election).
Look at the contradictions in these cases and its clear why Bush and the Neo-Cons will be remembered as incompetant if not downright evil.
Would it be legal for someone to shoot Cheney in the loophole zone?
If they do find a way to prosecute Green...the law will apply to everyone who committed crimes in Iraq...
It is impossible to investigate these companies in their lawless mideast havens.
Wait until people see the movie Redacted about the rape of a 14 year old...and realize Steven Green will walk free...
Those who oppose waging war without declaration point to Article I of the Constitution, which reads The Congress shall have the power to declare war.
In the case of smaller conflicts not requiring large commitments of manpower and money, many Americans believe that precedents have already been set for acting without the need for declarations of war. In the case of major conflicts, however, debate is centered around the aforesaid words of the United States Constitution.
Those who believe that formal declarations of war are not necessary, argue that since the Constitution expressly prohibits the states from engaging in war without consent of Congress unless actually invaded or in imminent danger, that if a similar prohibition had been intended for the President, then such words would have also been written to effect it. They also point to the military connotations of the phrases engaging in war (used in the aforesaid prohibition) and levying war (used in the definition of treason) as opposed to the diplomatic connotations of the phrase declare war. Further historical arguments point to the decisions to not issue a formal declaration of war preceding either the Civil War or the Revolutionary War, the latter decision being made by a Continental Congress comprising a number of those who went on to write the Constitution. Moreover, the term "Declaration of War" is not, in fact, mentioned by the US Constitution.
There are also diplomatic reasons for a dislike of "declaring war" on a country, as it can often be perceived as holding an entire nation responsible for the actions of a few of its citizens. In the case of the most recent public opposition, those who support such actions have noted that, in the case of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, there was no ''target'' for a legal declaration of war, rather political groups or individuals. On the other hand, many argue that since an invading army seeks to, or at least actually does, occupy and cause havoc to an entire target country and its population (as opposed to the target political groups or individuals), the aforementioned justifications are tenuous at best.
Steven Green was discharged from the Army, and is *not* being prosecuted under UCMJ (military) justice.
He now falls into a phony ''''legal loophole'''' created by Bush and the Neocons.
Just consider the choice of law problem, which ''rules of evidence'' apply. Under phone Bush law we get the unique result that *no* rules of evidence applys -- because allowing either U.S. or Iraqi law has profound results for past illegal acts and ongoing investigations.
The alleged Haliburton rapists and killers (and, illegal arms sellers) fall into the same loophole as Steven Green, to preserve the loophole its impossible to prosecute him.
Steven Green will walk free. Just like Hailburton rapists, he falls into the loophole. They will be able to party with your daughter, and there''''s nothing anyone can do.
Look at the contradictions in these cases and its clear why Bush and the Neo-Cons will be remembered as incompetant if not downright evil.
Would it be legal for someone to shoot Cheney in the loophole zone?
If they do find a way to prosecute Green...the law will apply to everyone who committed crimes in Iraq...
Wait until people see the movie Redacted about the rape of a 14 year old...and realize Steven Green will walk free...
Despite the constitutional requirement that Congress declare war, in practice, formal Declarations of War have occurred only upon prior request by the President.
After World War II, Congress voluntarily limited its use of the power to declare war to issuing authorizations of force. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (Pub.L. 93-148) limits the power of the President to wage war without the approval of the Congress. The United States of America has formally declared war against foreign nations five separate times.
Steven Green was discharged from the Army, and is *not* being prosecuted under UCMJ (military) law. He now falls into a phony ''legal loophole'' created by Bush and the Neocons.
Just consider the choice of law issue: which ''rules of evidence'' apply? Under phony Bush law, we get the result that *no* rules of evidence apply -- because allowing either U.S. or Iraqi law enables prosecution of past illegal acts and ongoing investigations.
It is impossible to investigate these companies in their lawless mideast havens. That is why they moved out of the U.S. (and to avoid taxes).
The alleged Haliburton rapists and killers (and, illegal arms sellers) fall into the same loophole as Steven Green, to preserve the loophole its impossible to prosecute him.
Steven Green will walk free. Just like Helliburton rapists, he falls into the loophole. They will be able to party with your daughter, and there''s nothing anyone can do.
Look at the contradictions in these cases and its clear why Bush and the Neo-Cons will be remembered as incompetant if not downright evil.
Would it be legal for someone to shoot Cheney in the loophole zone?
If they do find a way to prosecute Green...the law will apply to everyone who committed crimes in Iraq.
Wait until people see the movie Redacted about this case...and realize Steven Green will walk free.
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 57 Comments